wasnt there some problem or screw up when they first ran carbon dating tests
on the shroud(sp?) of turin???? i forget i heard or saw something about this
somewhere.
dustin
----------
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [MMouse]: Re: Digest modestmouse.v001.n588
>Date: Wed, Dec 1, 1999, 5:18 PM
>
>
> Not that I even want to indulge in this debate while I have essay coming due
> left & right, but:
>
> The funny thing about carbon dating has always been its assumption: That the
> forces of nature present now have always been the same. It is basing itself
> on present conditions to explain the past, which isn't (hasn't?) been exactly
> uniform throught out it's "4+ billion" to "2000 years" (depending on who you
> ask, I guess!) of existence.
>
>
>> K well, unless you have the scientific prowess to completely disprove carbon
>> dating, which is something rediculous like 97.9% correct then maybe you have
>> yourself an arguement. However, considering the oldest Primate/human they
>> have found to date has been dated past 40,000 years I think there might be
>> some problems with your theory. Do me a favor, take a few Geology Courses
>> and then tell me what ya think. Im not sayin youre wrong, well, yes I am,
>> but regardless, seriously, don't you think the smartest people in the world
>> would know a little bit more about the Halflife of Carbon molecules then say
>> you or I? For Christs sake, we actually had to perform carbon dating in my
>> Geology class, thus making it a bit more of a theory than a hypothesis.
>> Dont believe everything that you read.
>> Jonathan
>>
>
>
